Author
Topic: Are you really serious about 6D? (Read 43950 times)

The 6D could have been so much better and appealed to a much larger audience without the cost being too much more and without compromising on the 5D, with a real hybrid between a XXXD, XXD & 7D with a full frame sensor

If you are looking for a longer term investment a 6D just isnt one to get in my mind.

I didnt expect the 6D to have poor IQ, and it has proven itself, it appears to be fantastic. But if you are an amateur used to the 9 point system the 11 point isnt a massive upgrade apart from one point, even the 650Ds are all cross point, but it will feel similar... not sure i like the idea of that price and the camera AF feeling similar. But I wouldn't buy a 2k camera that really doesn't improve much apart from IQ it needs to be across the board, a camera consists of more than just a good sensor. IQ means nothing if only one point is worth using.

What happens if you want some nice primes like a 50mm 1.2? taking full advantage of that IQ? focusing with the single point and recomposing at this fine DOF will return poor focus and as the other 10 are pretty much useless.... makes the IQ worthless, unless you plan on manual focusing most of the time. How often is your subject bang in the centre?

It has a few cool quirks with the Wi-fi & GPS. But really if everyone were to be honest it could have been better, it has clearly been detuned so not so step on the toes of the 5D MKIII but people who buy that camera are in a different market in my opinion. The D600 although also having its quirks, is a better option if your an amateur without too much invested.

I make money with my camera and buy what i need. If i was an amateur then I would feel even worse! It is an improvement over the 5D MKII but not 4 years worth of improvement. With the 5D MKIII not much more it doesn't make any sense in my mind to buy a 6D. £2k for a 5D MKIII or £1600 for the 6D? I bought a 5D.

I like the 6D. I'm keeping my 7D for anything that requires telephoto or fast moving subjects so that's covered.

Sure, the Nikons have better specs on paper but I doubt it will translate to better pictures for most of us, and that's what matters most. To me the current Nikons and Canons are the best cameras ever made, so putting one down because the other has this or that is trivial, even more so considering that the camera is only part of a system.

The 6D could have been so much better and appealed to a much larger audience without the cost being too much more and without compromising on the 5D, with a real hybrid between a XXXD, XXD & 7D with a full frame sensor

If you are looking for a longer term investment a 6D just isnt one to get in my mind.

I didnt expect the 6D to have poor IQ, and it has proven itself, it appears to be fantastic. But if you are an amateur used to the 9 point system the 11 point isnt a massive upgrade apart from one point, even the 650Ds are all cross point, but it will feel similar... not sure i like the idea of that price and the camera AF feeling similar. But I wouldn't buy a 2k camera that really doesn't improve much apart from IQ it needs to be across the board, a camera consists of more than just a good sensor. IQ means nothing if only one point is worth using.

What happens if you want some nice primes like a 50mm 1.2? taking full advantage of that IQ? focusing with the single point and recomposing at this fine DOF will return poor focus and as the other 10 are pretty much useless.... makes the IQ worthless, unless you plan on manual focusing most of the time. How often is your subject bang in the centre?

It has a few cool quirks with the Wi-fi & GPS. But really if everyone were to be honest it could have been better, it has clearly been detuned so not so step on the toes of the 5D MKIII but people who buy that camera are in a different market in my opinion. The D600 although also having its quirks, is a better option if your an amateur without too much invested.

I make money with my camera and buy what i need. If i was an amateur then I would feel even worse! It is an improvement over the 5D MKII but not 4 years worth of improvement. With the 5D MKIII not much more it doesn't make any sense in my mind to buy a 6D. £2k for a 5D MKIII or £1600 for the 6D? I bought a 5D.

I disagree on a few levels. Looking at al lthe bells and whistles on the mk3, and seeing the reaction to the price (many saying it should be $2500), where does that leave any room for improving the 6d?

Center point only, yeah it seems like a step back, but, looking at all the amazing images the 5d2 has cranked out over the lifetime of the cam center point may do just fine! Many claimed the 5d2 was only really usable to ISO 3200, and would push it to 6400 in a pinch if it was the only way to get the shot. It seems that the 6d is following the 5d3 in ISO, so ISO 6400 -12800 being usable is a huge upgrade!

Different strokes I guess, also, everyone looking at these bodies has their own needs to fill. For me, I have a mk3 so this would be a backup body. Yeah, the price difference isn't that huge (in the sticker at least, it's closer to $1200 difference after tax though). To me, that is the cost of a 135 f2L. If your on a mk2 looking to upgrade though, then yeah the 6d may not be as big of a leap as you want. But if your on a 60D, then just the FF sensor alone is reason to buy! Different strokes!

My first Canon camera was an AE-1 back in the 70s and I moved to an F1 after that. Back then I would say Canon and Nikon were on equal ground even though the vast majority of pros shot Nikon. Then EOS came and the pros bailed on Nikon because of the AF and IS in the glass.

Today no one can deny that the sensors Nikon uses are far better in terms of detail and DR. If Canon continues to put out sub par sensors the pros will go back to Nikon. Canon is lagging behind and they need to get back in the game on sensor tech.I was considering a 6D but the difference in the sensors between the 6D and D600 are just so far apart its hard to justify getting a 6D.

Having the best glass in the world doesnt make much difference if the sensor can't record the capability of the lens. Back in the film days you had a choice of what film to use with your glass. Now you don't have a choice in the sensor you can put in your camera and that sensor is just as important as the glass in front of it.

I won't bail on Canon but I am disappointed in Canon's sensors right now and I just may have to wait longer for better sensors.

Go take a look at the Nikon forums... Um, how's that superior sensor with dust and oil splatters? Or the laundry list of other issues like green color shifts, left-side focus point issues, blah, blah, blah...

I'm not a Canon "fanboy", I just happen to like how Canon cameras feel and function in my hand. I picked up a D800 the other day to see how it felt. I didn't like anything about it. It's sensor may be able to capture angels with it's magical powers, but that isn't the whole story.

I really don't understand how there are so many threads that are just all about spec sheets and test charts. There is so much more.

What happens if you want some nice primes like a 50mm 1.2? taking full advantage of that IQ? focusing with the single point and recomposing at this fine DOF will return poor focus and as the other 10 are pretty much useless.... makes the IQ worthless, unless you plan on manual focusing most of the time. How often is your subject bang in the centre?

Coming from someone who sent a 6D back and bought a 5D3 instead, I found the AF on the 6D to be decent. The center point is very good, the outer points quite usable in decent light. I tested the outers quite a bit before I sent it back due to IQ issues. Apparently mine was a dud because I'm net seeing similar IQ issues in other 6D shots. But the AF was fine...even in servo...big step forward from 5D2 imo. Sure it looks like poo on paper, but in practice the AF worked pretty good imo.

The 6D could have been so much better and appealed to a much larger audience without the cost being too much more and without compromising on the 5D, with a real hybrid between a XXXD, XXD & 7D with a full frame sensor

If you are looking for a longer term investment a 6D just isnt one to get in my mind.

I didnt expect the 6D to have poor IQ, and it has proven itself, it appears to be fantastic. But if you are an amateur used to the 9 point system the 11 point isnt a massive upgrade apart from one point, even the 650Ds are all cross point, but it will feel similar... not sure i like the idea of that price and the camera AF feeling similar. But I wouldn't buy a 2k camera that really doesn't improve much apart from IQ it needs to be across the board, a camera consists of more than just a good sensor. IQ means nothing if only one point is worth using.

What happens if you want some nice primes like a 50mm 1.2? taking full advantage of that IQ? focusing with the single point and recomposing at this fine DOF will return poor focus and as the other 10 are pretty much useless.... makes the IQ worthless, unless you plan on manual focusing most of the time. How often is your subject bang in the centre?

It has a few cool quirks with the Wi-fi & GPS. But really if everyone were to be honest it could have been better, it has clearly been detuned so not so step on the toes of the 5D MKIII but people who buy that camera are in a different market in my opinion. The D600 although also having its quirks, is a better option if your an amateur without too much invested.

I make money with my camera and buy what i need. If i was an amateur then I would feel even worse! It is an improvement over the 5D MKII but not 4 years worth of improvement. With the 5D MKIII not much more it doesn't make any sense in my mind to buy a 6D. £2k for a 5D MKIII or £1600 for the 6D? I bought a 5D.

I disagree on a few levels. Looking at al lthe bells and whistles on the mk3, and seeing the reaction to the price (many saying it should be $2500), where does that leave any room for improving the 6d?

Center point only, yeah it seems like a step back, but, looking at all the amazing images the 5d2 has cranked out over the lifetime of the cam center point may do just fine! Many claimed the 5d2 was only really usable to ISO 3200, and would push it to 6400 in a pinch if it was the only way to get the shot. It seems that the 6d is following the 5d3 in ISO, so ISO 6400 -12800 being usable is a huge upgrade!

Different strokes I guess, also, everyone looking at these bodies has their own needs to fill. For me, I have a mk3 so this would be a backup body. Yeah, the price difference isn't that huge (in the sticker at least, it's closer to $1200 difference after tax though). To me, that is the cost of a 135 f2L. If your on a mk2 looking to upgrade though, then yeah the 6d may not be as big of a leap as you want. But if your on a 60D, then just the FF sensor alone is reason to buy! Different strokes!

Granted the 5D MKIII at release was insane at £3500 but you can get body only for £1990 now, with the 6D at £1600.

Most pros hated the AF of the 5D MKII, but you have to remember it was revolutionary and it will be forever held in that sense, the AF was flawed then, but it was a great camera so most put up with it. The difference is that was 4 years ago!!!! 4 Years later and we have 2 points more and ONE cross type thats sensitive! Right in the middle! So what about composition? Or do you put everything in the middle? and when using fast glass youll be fine to see your focus and recompose is now not in focus? Because thats all you can do the rest arent worth talking about.

Then you have the 5D MKIII with 61 AF points 50 more... huge gap! or the 7D AF system in the middle with 19. If they had remade the 7D AF system for the FF 6D and spread them out, unlike the D600. This would have flown off the shelves, would have made the camera from a meh camera to a wow camera. Really worth it for up graders, just because people are amateurs does that mean they have to have the worst AF? Especially when there are other AF systems in the parts bin. Its just lazy, but im sure Canon wont loose anything but my money didnt go to one.

Whether all those pictures you quote actually came from the AF system or were manual focused you cant tell.

Like I said IQ isn't the problem. But its a flawed combination of great IQ and awful AF especially when you need the best L glass to resolve the sensor. Completely baffling! Suppose its just a shame really!

Not sure what Canon are doing they are too bothered about protecting their markets than embracing new ones... like the EOS M, could have been much better but they are protecting the XXXD market.

6D is good if its the best you can afford. Not everybody can spend the cash for 5d mk3 or 1dX. Plus its also hard to tell people "then just save another year for the mk3" or such...Heck im still using my 1100D (using all focus points :O ) and my only concern is to get better lenses.

But I wouldn't buy a 2k camera that really doesn't improve much apart from IQ it needs to be across the board, a camera consists of more than just a good sensor.

+1000

Some might consider the 6D to be an entry-level FF camera but it's not an entry-level camera overall. As you said, when upgrading to the 6D, one would expect upgrades across the board, not just the sensor.

The 650D, which sells for $599 in the US right now, has an AF system with 9 cross points with a double-cross point in the center. The 6D cannot even match that - let alone provide an upgrade.And that's despite the 4x price difference.